Specific state of play with RDP / EIP programming in Slovenia

Transcription

1 Specific state of play with RDP / EIP programming in Slovenia Tanja GORIŠEK Head of Department for the implementation of RDP Rural Development Division Ministry of Agriculture and Environment

2 Content of the presentation I. INTRODUCTION TO THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EIP OPERATIONAL GROUPS IN SLOVENIA II. III. LAUNCHING THE PROCESS IN SLOVENIA SOME CONCERNS / OPEN QUESTIONS

3 I. PART INTRODUCTION TO THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EIP OPERATIONAL GROUPS IN SLOVENIA

4 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in Slovenian RDP Compared to RDP innovation and knowledge transfer now set in the centre of national priorities for RDP Key measures: Art. 14, 15 and 35. Possible linkages to investment measure under Art. 17. Direct linkage to Art. 14 demonstration activities. Higher productivity and value added Market organisation, strengthening of agro-food and forestwood chains Knowledge and innovation Maintenance of natural resources and adaptation to climate change Green jobs and socially sustainable and balanced development of rural areas

5 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in Slovenian RDP WHY? TECHNOLOGIES USED Lagging behind the EU-27 average in agricultural productivity. Challenges in terms of input reduction, technologies used, production results, animal husbandry, animal welfare, hygiene, quality of products Source: Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Labour productivity: 1 AWU cultivates 17,6 ha of UAA in the EU-27. In Slovenia, by comparison: 6,3 ha of UAA

6 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in Slovenian RDP WHY? WATER QUALITY ISSUES Environmental challenges nitrates from agriculture GROUND / SURFACE water quality Source: Agricultural Institute of Slovenia

7 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in Slovenian RDP WHY? BIODIVERSITY ISSUES Environmental challenges biodiversity decline in the areas of intensive agricultural activity Different type of habitats Source of photos: Environment Agency of RS / Bird Life Slovena -DOPPS

8 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in CLIMATE CHANGE Slovenian RDP WHY? Climate change challenges increased frequency of draughts, extreme weather events with hail, strong winds ) Povprečna temperatura Trendi (leto, ) Source: Environment Agency of RS LEGENDA C/stoletje

9 Central place of innovation and knowledge transfer in Slovenian RDP WHY? KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER GAPS Lack of coordination among all institutions /actors involved in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system resulting into less efficient flow of knowledge & innovation. Different actors (institutes, faculties, advisory service ) are governed by different incentives. They primarily want to legitimize their own existence competing among each other for the same part of (public) funding public funding is getting more and more scarce future? Linear flow of knowledge and innovation from research to end users via advisors recognized as insufficient form of a diffusion of latest knowledge. Who actually creates knowledge? Traditional knowledge producers (faculties, institutes) coping with the knowledge demand? Most advanced farmers acknowledged as more and more important in the knowledge and innovation transfer system.

10 Key possible themes for the EIP operational groups on agricultural productivity & sustainability (Art. 35) Water/soil quality nitrate / pesticides reduction Technological development in agriculture Cooperation measure is to be used to: reinforce innovation take-up & knowledge transfer in practice; reinforce / multiply effects of other measures (like agrienvironment-climate measure or measures related to competitiveness); increase result orientation of the programme. to bring about the RESULTS Climate change resilience / adaptation Biodiversity & agricultural practices

11 Expectations set for the EIP operational groups What do we expect from EIP? Closing the technological gap & increasing the sustainability of agriculture by developing, testing and introducing into practice new technological solutions. Effective cooperation among institutions, organisations and agricultural practice. Transfer of knowledge and innovation into practice. Development of a network of demonstration farms. Increase in competence of the farmers and stronger information flow. What will we try to avoid? Rent-seeking ; Dead-weight projects which: won t develop, test and introduce directly applicable knowledge, won t include final users of this knowledge, Won t have clearly defined relations among actors, Won t be targeted in achieving clear results, Won t disseminate knowledge Funding business as usual. 11

12 II. PART LAUNCHING THE PROCESS

13 How to bring EIP in practice? NEEDS IDENTIFICATION PROJECT DISSEMINATION 1. Identification of needs of agricultural practice (call for expression of interest & workshops) 3. Public tender 4. Dissemination/ Knowledge transfer Need 2 Need 1 Evaluation, ranking & selection of projects Project database Need X Project implementation 2. Prioritization of needs to be defined and included in the tender Project finalisation

14 1. PHASE: Needs identification ASSUMPTIONS: The ideas must come from the needs of agricultural practice. Research institutions advisors are losing touch with the needs of the practice. Research projects have under-use value for practice. DILLEMAS: How to transfer information about the needs of agricultural practices by a bottom-up approach, i.e. how to ensure that end-users - farmers, agribusinesses are interested and have the ability to identify the topic of the project? When & how often do the needs identification and in what way? APPROACHES: Call for expression of interest (pre-proposals) Workshops (already offering possibilities for networking) ROLE OF A RURAL NETWORK: PROVIDING A PLATFORM FOR NETWORKING / SEARCH FOR PARTNERS

15 1. PHASE: Needs identification Ministry organized in February 3 workshops on different aspects of Art. 35 in February Altogether 123 stakeholders participated from different spheres: advisors, academics, NGOs, environmental organisations Weaknesses / needs / potentials Weaknesses / needs / potentials Project ideas Project ideas Project ideas EXAMPLE: Water / Soil / Nature - natural resources management Weaknesses / needs / potentials Weaknesses / needs / potentials But were the farmers reached enough? Will they be interested to collaborate? Successful projects should pave the way, help overcoming scepticizm ANIMATION / INFORMATION = CRUCIAL TOOLS. Weaknesses / needs / potentials

16 2. PHASE: Needs prioritization ASSUMPTIONS: Budgetary resources are limited. Needs prioritization requires expertise which administration does not have. Needs prioritization has to be impartial conflict of interest has to be avoided. DILLEMAS: Disinclination towards establishment of a new quasi- political structure. Possibility of a conflict of interest. Rigidity. APPROACH: Based on the SWOT analysis, call for expression of interest, workshops the ministry prepares a list of key themes to be included in the public tender first part of The list of key themes to be debated with the experts. The list to be approved by the Managing Authority.

17 2. PHASE: Needs prioritization From the needs identification towards a tender. Workshops Call for expression of interest (preproposal) Needs identification MoA & Experts Evaluation & prioritization of topics Suggestion to the Managing authority Proposed topics are discussed and approved. Managing Authority Public tender MA publishes public tender.

18 3. PHASE: Public tender ASSUMPTIONS: Public tender focuses on themes selected. Evaluation of project proposals requires expertise which administration does not have. DILLEMAS: Are the topics selected a closed list or could a public tender offer a possibility to apply a project not fitting the pre-selected topics? Use of qualitative evaluation? POSSIBLE APPROACH ANALYSED List of priority themes but with an open window for innovative projects not fitting the pre-defined priority themes. Paying agency does the admissibility check. Qualitative evaluation = a special Commission / board with the inclusion of reference experts in the evaluation. Similar approach as for research projects (see Horizon 2020).

19 3. PHASE: Public tender OPERATIONAL GROUPS KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SETTING UP Ideally an operational group would consist mandatory of : At minimum 1 association of public or private legal status engaged in agricultural / food processing sector At minimum 1 SME or physical person engaged in agriculture / food processing. At minimum 1 legal person of public or private status engaged in research in agriculture/food processing. Depending on the project also other actors could be involved: NGOs, local authorities

20 3. PHASE: Public tender OPERATIONAL GROUPS KEY ASPECTS TO BE CONSIDERED EIP operational group and its composition: Contractual or legal form most probably a consortium, End user (farmer, SME) has to be included, Relations and responsibilities clearly defined. Role of EIP operational groups: they should develop, test and apply the latest knowledge & innovations into practice AND disseminate the results. In general, a project should have three key phases: I. preparation, II. development and testing including application into practice / production, III. dissemination of results. Result orientation - essential element: key role of entry criteria and output/result indicators of a project. These should be tangible, verifiable. Submission of a high quality project elaborate. All these elements are intrinsic to a an application for support = to be assessed prior to granting aid.

21 3. PHASE: Public tender OPERATIONAL GROUPS APPLICATION FOR SUPPORT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 1. Partnership is in a proper form and composition. 2. An agreement on cooperation between members or other legally binding relationship of mutual cooperation (internal rules on roles, responsibilities, internal procedures). 3. Content, results and objectives of the project are related to the objectives and priorities of the Rural Development Programme defined via intervention logic. 4. Project elaborate, which contains all the required content. 1. Problem description, analysis of existing studies and research. 2. Description of the project with expected results, methodology to be used to reach to results, phases of the project. 3. Description of dissemination of project results.

22 3. PHASE: Public tender SELECTION CRITERIA Preliminary ideas on the criteria for determining the appropriateness and quality of the projects and for their selection are: 1. the composition of the partnership (cross-sectoral, different production types, different actors of the food chain ), 2. coherence and integration of content, results and objectives with the objectives and priorities of the Rural Development Programme , 3. added value of the project & contribution to development and /or innovation, 4. environmental and nature conservation aspect, 5. usefulness and sustainability of the project results and the manner and extent of their dissemination, 6. financial structure of the project.

23 3. PHASE: Public tender TYPE OF SUPPORT AND ELIGIBLE COSTS Type of support: grants. Eligible costs: running costs of cooperation; costs that are directly linked to the implementation of the project such as personnel costs, cost of equipment and other investment costs, costs of outsourced services, such as contractual research, technical knowledge and patents...other expenses not specifically identified in the preceding groups, whereas their formation is directly linked to the implementation of the project activities; the cost of promotional activities.

24 3. PHASE: Public tender / call for proposal Publication of a call for proposal Open at least 2 months. Topics pre-defined. Submission of proposals Eligibility check (administration) Evaluation / qualitative assessment by experts E Submitted in prescribed format. Completeness. Composition of consortium. Administrative / financial aspects Relevance of the project topic. Individual review. Consensus / panel review. Expected impact, relevance of results, value added. Quality & efficiency of implementation and delivery. Funding decision

25 4. PHASE: Dissemination of project results ASSUMPTIONS: Each projects needs to include a demonstration phase and knowledge dissemination. MA needs to assure that results are not lost after the finalisation of the project. DILLEMAS: Sustainability of projects? Dissemination of results? POSSIBLE APPROACHES ANALYSED Role of Rural Network database on the website, brochures, events., workshops possible linkages to the EIP network set at the EU level. Linkages with measure Knowledge transfer and information (Article 14) = demonstration projects.

26 TIMELINE RDP sent to EC for informal consultation February 2014 Several workshops on Art. 35 April 2014 June 2014 October / November 2014 December 2014 / early 2015 Call for expression of interest identification of needs Formal submission of RDP Approval of RDP First calls for proposals (also for EIP) Throughout the year: animation, information activities using Technical Assisstance

27 III. PART SOME CONCERNS / OPEN QUESTIONS ENCOUNTERED

28 INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION - OPEN QUESTIONS How should EIP groups be separated from other forms of cooperation? Who shall designate these groups as EIP groups? Are they to be appointed/approved by a competent authority? Can the status of an EIP group be revoked; if yes, in what cases? State aid arrangement due to diversity of actors within the cooperation groups. Will the existing institutional set-up simply try to use the measure as a way of financing their usual business? Will farmers really be interested in cooperation? Will they see the opportunities in it? Will we be able to overcome scepticism?

29 INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION - OPEN QUESTIONS Who is our target group for innovation? Setting the EIP in a broader socio-economic context Unfavourable average age structure of farmers = 57 years. FORMAL /GENERAL EDUCATION ,1 37,2 38,3 50, ,3 6 3,2 6,2 0, Without or incomplete primary school Primary school Lower vocational /secondary school Higher education No data 29

30 INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION - OPEN QUESTIONS Who is our target group for innovation? Setting the EIP in a broader socio-economic context Unfavourable average age structure of farmers = 57 years. FORMAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION 90 83, , , ,2 5 7,4 0,7 1,4 2,2 0 0 Practical experiences only Courses in agriculture Secondary or vocational education Higher education No data

31 THANK YOU FOR THE ATTENTION! Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Slovenia